Bishop Sample explains proper understanding of Ad Orientum celebration of the Mass

[marthaferretti]

youtube.com/watch?v=ZIwK2ZXfmpk&feature=feedwll&list=WL

My brother-in-law, who was ignorant of the traditional Latin Mass, got mad at me when I explained that it was unimportant whether we in the pews can hear the priest pray the Mass or see his face. His father had to educate him that the traditional Latin Mass was the only Latin Rite Mass unitl 1970. He still insists he wants to say the prayers and hear & see the priest.

I sent him this video so he can begin to really understand what the Mass is supposed to be.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I saw that video a few weeks ago.

I hate how people act like just because the priest is facing the same direction, that they can’t hear or something. With a church with the proper acoustic characteristics, and a priest who speaks above a whisper, it shouldn’t be hard for the average person to hear.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I saw that video a few weeks ago.

I hate how people act like just because the priest is facing the same direction, that they can’t hear or something. With a church with the proper acoustic characteristics, and a priest who speaks above a whisper, it shouldn’t be hard for the average person to hear.

I agree. Most traditional Byzantine parishes do not have microphones (ours had our sound system broken for at least a year and the priest and bishop just used the power of their voice) and it was never a problem. I actually was against the use of microphones

 

[TheMc]

I saw that video a few weeks ago.

I hate how people act like just because the priest is facing the same direction, that they can’t hear or something. With a church with the proper acoustic characteristics, and a priest who speaks above a whisper, it shouldn’t be hard for the average person to hear.

YTC, you’re right. Facing ad orientem and being inaudible are two separate issues.

 

[marthaferretti]

merely means that rather than sitting in the pew like a ‘lump on a log’, the laity unites their prayers (the prayers of the Mass) with the prayers that the priest is offering God at the altar.

 

[marthaferretti]

that my brother-in-law thinks it’s imperative to pray the Mass aloud. My point was that the responses are just as valid when said silently.

 

[TheMc]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with silent responses. It’s not envisioned by the OF rubrics, but it’s in the EF, and as I said, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with silent responses. It’s not envisioned by the OF rubrics, but it’s in the EF, and as I said, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

A lot of people claim that such elements in the OF were borrowed from the Protestants. They were actually taken from the Eastern Rites. The free-standing altars are common in the East, as well as active participation by the congregation. You cannot say Divine Liturgy without a congregation, as opposed to a Mass that can be said in private and without anyone to make the responses.

The first few times I attended Divine Liturgy, I was mostly out of breath by the Anaphora because of all the singing one has to do. Even today, my lungs are tired before the end of the Liturgy from all the singing.

 

[mburn16]

Its worth pointing out that the Latin mass does not necessarily require the Priest to face away from the congregation, and some churches either had set ups where the Priest faced the congregation, or where the sanctuary was in a circular design, where at least SOME of the flock faced the Priest. National Shrine of the Little Flower comes to mind.

As for the silent/audible question - not unlike other issues relating to this one, I’m somewhat middle of the road - if a Priest is offering prayers for himself, or confessing his own sins, or preparing the altar for celebration, then the prayer can be silent. If he is offering a prayer for the congregation, or if the congregation is collectively offering prayers, then I think it should be audible by those for whom the prayers are being offered. This also, IMO, applies to the consecration.

 

[GelasianumVetus]

Yes, the Mass is not less valid when the Eucharistic Prayer is said silently.

That said, we are not minimalists, looking for just the bare essentials.

You have to ask yourself the question: what is the point of the prayer? If the prayer makes no difference, why doesn’t the priest simply say the words of institution (which is exactly what Luther did…)?

The text of the prayer is for us, is for the Church. God doesn’t need all the words, but we do- to realize more deeply what is going on invisibly by the power of God.

The Mass is not more or less the Mass when the Prayer is said inaudibly. But it has more of the effect on us which it is supposed to have when it is said aloud.

The reason certain other prayers are meant to be said inaudibly is because they are the private prayers of the priest, preparing him personally for his duty. But isn’t it fitting that the prayer which is the prayer of the Church, which the priest prays in the 1st person plural, be said aloud for all to hear? Is it the prayer of the whole Church, or is it the personal prayer of the priest?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think it would be a good thing to bring back the strict distinction between low masses and high masses, with low masses being primarily silent and music-less, and with high masses being primarily sung.

That, and very much stricter rubrics. Think of when, at an Extraordinary Form mass, the priest’s index fingers and thumbs touch for the whole Canon. That was quite useful, and I don’t understand why it was gotten rid of. Sure, VII called for simplification of rubrics, but that served a purpose: to keep any tiny fragments of the Body from being dropped and thus profanated.

 

[Elizium23]

YTC, you’re right. Facing ad orientem and being inaudible are two separate issues.

That depends on how much of a lip reader one is. There are many studies which have proved the importance of reading lips, even for hearing people, even under ideal conditions. But as has been pointed out, one does not need to hear the priest for validity, or even active participation; many times a hand missal or pew book will be available to read along.

I had no trouble understanding the clergy at Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, and the cantor/choir was situated in a place where I could see their faces, so this aided in my comprehension of the people’s parts, even when they were totally unfamiliar to me. Small flyers were provided with the words of the weekly hymns.

 

[thomas_jd]

Today I served mass at the altar steps. The priest faced ad orientum, his back to the congregation. His eyes fixed on the book, the gifts, the cross, and at the proper time on the Body and Blood. I followed his gaze, I assisted him. I watched spellbound as the focus of our line of vision was narrow and direct. No distractions, no peripheal vision issues
natural, simple, and the way I was trained to serve these many, many, years ago.
The priest lead his flock , he went forward not walking backwards. We faced the ten foot crucifix together, all of us.
This was an ordinary mass, in the venacular, as seen thru the eyes of an old altar “boy”.

 

[TheMc]

Today I served mass at the altar steps. The priest faced ad orientum, his back to the congregation. His eyes fixed on the book, the gifts, the cross, and at the proper time on the Body and Blood. I followed his gaze, I assisted him. I watched spellbound as the focus of our line of vision was narrow and direct. No distractions, no peripheal vision issues
natural, simple, and the way I was trained to serve these many, many, years ago.
The priest lead his flock , he went forward not walking backwards. We faced the ten foot crucifix together, all of us.
This was an ordinary mass, in the venacular, as seen thru the eyes of an old altar “boy”.

Amazing, isn’t it?

 

[Aramis]

youtube.com/watch?v=ZIwK2ZXfmpk&feature=feedwll&list=WL

My brother-in-law, who was ignorant of the traditional Latin Mass, got mad at me when I explained that it was unimportant whether we in the pews can hear the priest pray the Mass or see his face. His father had to educate him that the traditional Latin Mass was the only Latin Rite Mass unitl 1970. He still insists he wants to say the prayers and hear & see the priest.

I sent him this video so he can begin to really understand what the Mass is supposed to be.

Actually, there are good reasons why the laity SHOULD hear the priest. They just don’t in any way affect the validity of the mass. They can be summarized as (1) educating the faithful by the text of the mass and (2) making it easier to unite one’s prayers with his.

 

[ProVobis]

Sure, VII called for simplification of rubrics, but that served a purpose: to keep any tiny fragments of the Body from being dropped and thus profanated.

That makes sense. But the “simplification” of rubric prayers (removal of bows, genuflections, signs of cross, tap on the altar, Epistle side, Gospel side, etc.) meant that people needed to rely more on verbal prayer. Thus it became necessary to use the microphone, face the people, and speak in the vernacular. At least that’s my theory, seeing that all three came to be about the same time, after 1600 years of a low-toned ad orientem Mass they seemed to understand whether they knew Latin or not.

 

[Aramis]

after 1600 years of a low-toned ad orientem Mass they seemed to understand whether they knew Latin or not.

More like only 700-800 years of it. Look at the rubrics in the Domincan missal, which call for clear voice for many of the prayers.

Really, the low mass seems to have become overused.

 

[ProVobis]

More like only 700-800 years of it. Look at the rubrics in the Domincan missal, which call for clear voice for many of the prayers.

Maybe, but do they require microphones and amplification which can be very hard on some ears?

I see an increasing number of Masses using ASL. Does this mean we’ve lost the nonverbal prayers altogether?

 

[Aramis]

Maybe, but do they require microphones and amplification which can be very hard on some ears?

No, but then again, many priests could project well.

I see an increasing number of Masses using ASL. Does this mean we’ve lost the nonverbal prayers altogether?

For the deaf community (My BIL is deaf, as is his wife), signing is equivalent to speaking. To and including the admonition “Don’t sign with your hands full” being seen at the dinner table.